| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 10:01 | walterbender | We have an agenda in the wiki... |
| 10:01 | the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet... | |
| 10:02 | the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee? | |
| 10:02 | cjb | nope |
| 10:02 | SeanDaly | not I |
| 10:02 | walterbender | nor I :( |
| 10:02 | I know they got my message regarding the deadline | |
| 10:03 | I am afraid this process has not worked. | |
| 10:03 | bernie | This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel. |
| 10:03 | We're all here. | |
| 10:03 | walterbender | ciao bernardo |
| 10:03 | SeanDaly | greetings bernieadammel |
| 10:03 | walterbender | do you need the backlog? |
| 10:04 | bernie | no, we have it. |
| 10:04 | (Mel is typing) | |
| 10:04 | walterbender | since bernie is here, let's start with his topic. |
| 10:04 | bernie | which topic is that? |
| 10:04 | walterbender | #TOPIC teams@ lists |
| 10:04 | bernie | Ah, yes. I see. |
| 10:05 | walterbender | Bernie, can you summarize your proposal? |
| 10:06 | bernie | I worry that we'd end up using long cc lists too much if we do not have a standard way to share business/strategic communication with key people such as team leaders |
| 10:06 | I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication. | |
| 10:06 | SeanDaly | I like this idea |
| 10:07 | often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not) | |
| 10:07 | tomeu | I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people |
| 10:07 | bernie | there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs |
| 10:07 | walterbender | bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used? |
| 10:07 | tomeu | do we have any past situations that support this need? |
| 10:07 | SeanDaly | A media campaign launch :-) |
| 10:08 | "all hands on deck" | |
| 10:08 | bernie | tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal |
| 10:08 | tomeu: or the launchpad thing | |
| 10:09 | SeanDaly | or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief) |
| 10:09 | walterbender | bernie: I am not sure I understand |
| 10:10 | each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address? | |
| 10:10 | Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list? | |
| 10:11 | tomeu | frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | well, the problem is lack of interaction |
| 10:11 | walterbender | SeanDaly: can you please elaborate? |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | for example if marketing stuff which impacts development, |
| 10:11 | cjb | tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake |
| 10:11 | tomeu | and I don't like the word leader, each team needs a coordinator but several of its members can have a leader role in different areas |
| 10:11 | bernie | walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team |
| 10:11 | SeanDaly | there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop |
| 10:11 | bernie | tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true |
| 10:12 | SeanDaly | at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time |
| 10:12 | bernie | mel: I have a counterproposal - instead of having a teams@ list, make it a req that each team has a slobs in the loop for that team |
| 10:12 | SeanDaly | to put it mildly |
| 10:12 | bernie | i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador" |
| 10:12 | walterbender | bernie: in theory we have that already. |
| 10:12 | it is in our bylaws | |
| 10:12 | cjb | SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this |
| 10:12 | tomeu | bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not |
| 10:13 | cjb | they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something |
| 10:13 | bernie | walterbender: in practice, though? |
| 10:13 | walterbender | bernie: for the most part, yes. |
| 10:13 | cjb | so it's sort of the opposite of our decision panel rules; rather than requiring no members of the board, they require at least one |
| 10:13 | bernie | walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues? |
| 10:13 | walterbender | bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc. |
| 10:14 | activities-me | |
| 10:14 | bernie | bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board |
| 10:14 | walterbender | and not so many teams either |
| 10:14 | bernie | mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed |
| 10:14 | mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues? | |
| 10:15 | cjb | we can "solve our confidentiality issues" by not being too lazy to write out addresses of individuals on e-mails when we need to, though |
| 10:15 | walterbender | I guess I (a) don't understand what are confidentiality issues are and (b) don't understand how another list would solve the problem I don't understand |
| 10:15 | cjb | and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't |
| 10:15 | tomeu | cjb++ |
| 10:15 | cjb | at least not in a way that's obvious to them :) |
| 10:16 | bernie | mel: bernie and I just clarified something between us - the "SLOBs ambassadors requirement" for teams would be for a SLOBs person to be actively watching that team, not necessarily leading it |
| 10:16 | (bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team) | |
| 10:16 | walterbender | bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing. |
| 10:16 | bernie | mel: cjb++ |
| 10:16 | cjb | so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good |
| 10:16 | even though I can see that it could create some good | |
| 10:17 | walterbender | bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion? |
| 10:17 | bernie | mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list |
| 10:17 | bernie: I would agree on that. | |
| 10:17 | cjb | what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador? |
| 10:18 | walterbender | bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws |
| 10:18 | cjb | does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings? |
| 10:18 | SeanDaly | perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful. |
| 10:18 | tomeu | btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each |
| 10:18 | bernie | mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say |
| 10:18 | tomeu | we don't even have a community manager yet |
| 10:18 | bernie | mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now |
| 10:18 | SeanDaly | or an education/content manager... |
| 10:19 | cjb | so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable |
| 10:19 | but I don't think it solves the same problem | |
| 10:19 | and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have | |
| 10:19 | bernie | Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily. |
| 10:19 | walterbender | deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED |
| 10:19 | bernie | mel: I think this is a good convo to take to Planet as a conversation starter, but we probably can't make much more progress on it right now |
| 10:20 | tomeu | also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team |
| 10:20 | bernie | bernie: +1 |
| 10:20 | adam: +1 | |
| 10:20 | cjb | +1 |
| 10:20 | SeanDaly | regular as long as I'm not moving house :D |
| 10:20 | tomeu | and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team |
| 10:20 | walterbender | in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time? |
| 10:20 | tomeu | so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings |
| 10:20 | bernie | mel: that's what I think |
| 10:21 | bernie: that's fine | |
| 10:21 | SeanDaly | I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody |
| 10:21 | bernie | adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation... |
| 10:21 | walterbender | I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams. |
| 10:21 | bernie | adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs |
| 10:21 | mel: moving on then? | |
| 10:21 | walterbender | bernie: are you satisfied? |
| 10:22 | bernie | yes |
| 10:22 | walterbender | OK. |
| 10:22 | to summarize: we will not implement the teams@ list at this time, but will mae a concerted effrot to ensure that there is SLOBs presence on all teams. | |
| 10:23 | #TOPIC SoaS DP | |
| 10:23 | Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP? | |
| 10:23 | none of the rest of us have. | |
| 10:23 | bernie | all three: no |
| 10:23 | walterbender | :( |
| 10:24 | I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel | |
| 10:24 | as per our discussion last time. | |
| 10:24 | SeanDaly | when was deadline again pls? |
| 10:24 | walterbender | today. |
| 10:24 | SeanDaly | yes, disappointing. |
| 10:25 | bernie | mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs? |
| 10:25 | cjb | mel: that would be my preference |
| 10:25 | walterbender | that is what we need to decide |
| 10:25 | bernie | mel: mine as well |
| 10:25 | cjb | I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws |
| 10:25 | so we get to wing it :) | |
| 10:25 | bernie | mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs |
| 10:26 | cjb | seconded |
| 10:26 | walterbender | discussion? |
| 10:26 | cjb | this seems uncontroversial to me. any objections? |
| 10:26 | tomeu | I thought it was already like that |
| 10:26 | walterbender | in some sense, we already have that responsibility |
| 10:26 | cjb | tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it |
| 10:27 | bernie | bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki |
| 10:27 | tomeu | cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created? |
| 10:27 | cjb | tomeu: no, not really |
| 10:27 | tomeu | I thought it was only a consultative thing |
| 10:27 | cjb | bernie: I'm not sure about that |
| 10:27 | tomeu | then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast |
| 10:27 | SeanDaly | yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached |
| 10:27 | cjb | of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first |
| 10:27 | walterbender | the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action. |
| 10:27 | cjb | but the DP's work is not complete |
| 10:27 | walterbender | in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion |
| 10:28 | we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP | |
| 10:28 | cjb | so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything. it's just something to read and help educate us. |
| 10:28 | bernie | bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus? |
| 10:28 | cjb | bernie: yes. |
| 10:28 | that's what dissolving the DP means. | |
| 10:28 | bernie | cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree. |
| 10:28 | walterbender | bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result |
| 10:29 | cjb | :) |
| 10:29 | bernie | mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote? |
| 10:29 | (that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision) | |
| 10:29 | walterbender | I am not sure we need a motion because it is how I would interpret the staus quo, but a motion won't hurt for clarity's sake |
| 10:29 | bernie | mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs. |
| 10:29 | walterbender | shall we vote? |
| 10:29 | cjb | aye |
| 10:30 | bernie | mel: aye |
| 10:30 | SeanDaly | aye |
| 10:30 | walterbender | aye |
| 10:30 | tomeu | as I said, I don't understand why we vote this |
| 10:30 | bernie | adam: tends to agree with tomeu |
| 10:30 | cjb | tomeu: it's just a point of clarification |
| 10:30 | tomeu | is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point? |
| 10:30 | cjb | nope |
| 10:31 | I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is: | |
| 10:31 | * The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel | |
| 10:31 | tomeu | well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs |
| 10:31 | if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad | |
| 10:31 | cjb | tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :) |
| 10:31 | * and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something | |
| 10:31 | tomeu | ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes |
| 10:32 | bernie | adam: feels we've already voted on this previously |
| 10:32 | cjb | the vote passed already :) |
| 10:33 | next up: would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with? | |
| 10:33 | it should probably be several of us, or even all of us | |
| 10:33 | walterbender | adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :( |
| 10:33 | cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue. | |
| 10:34 | bernie | FYI: This computer will die in less than 5 min |
| 10:34 | cjb | heh |
| 10:34 | bernie | bernie, mel, adam will be offline then |
| 10:34 | walterbender | and I think we should make a decision next week. |
| 10:34 | bernie | Be quick! |
| 10:34 | cjb | bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work? |
| 10:35 | walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right? | |
| 10:35 | walterbender | #ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide. |
| 10:35 | cjb | ok |
| 10:35 | it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting | |
| 10:35 | walterbender | if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list |
| 10:35 | bernie | bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :) |
| 10:35 | cjb | so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them |
| 10:35 | that'd be good | |
| 10:35 | walterbender | by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS] |
| 10:35 | cjb | I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion |
| 10:36 | would be good if others can too | |
| 10:36 | walterbender | thanks cjb |
| 10:36 | bernie | bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business |
| 10:36 | cjb | any other urgent business for this meeting? |
| 10:36 | walterbender | just discussion, I think |
| 10:36 | SeanDaly | well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO |
| 10:36 | walterbender | the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc |
| 10:37 | and of course, the trademark issue | |
| 10:37 | cjb | oh, yes! |
| 10:37 | bernie | adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct |
| 10:37 | SeanDaly | I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue |
| 10:37 | cjb | motion: no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI |
| 10:37 | walterbender | but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :( |
| 10:37 | cjb | fudbus folks, what'd you think? |
| 10:37 | walterbender | #TOPIC non-FOSS content |
| 10:37 | tomeu | SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this |
| 10:37 | SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin | |
| 10:38 | bernie | bernie: ok, switching battery |
| 10:38 | SeanDaly | no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books |
| 10:38 | tomeu | SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step? |
| 10:39 | SeanDaly | there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar |
| 10:39 | yes, first step | |
| 10:39 | we wstarted wiki page for that | |
| 10:39 | walterbender | this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content. |
| 10:39 | SeanDaly | wiki page may be better than ASLO |
| 10:39 | walterbender | we can never do more than plant seeds |
| 10:39 | tomeu | SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there? |
| 10:40 | walterbender | and show others how to take initiative |
| 10:40 | SeanDaly | tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier |
| 10:40 | idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders | |
| 10:40 | walterbender | I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission |
| 10:41 | tomeu | SeanDaly: I mean, there isn't enough free content to "solve the whole content problem", but there may be enough free content for that first step |
| 10:41 | SeanDaly | and hint how to search in repositories, online etc. |
| 10:41 | tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages | |
| 10:42 | idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity | |
| 10:42 | walterbender | what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic |
| 10:43 | tomeu | ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now? |
| 10:43 | cjb | walterbender: I made a motion and everything :) |
| 10:43 | there are two issues, related: | |
| 10:43 | * someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO | |
| 10:43 | * someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO | |
| 10:43 | walterbender | tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval |
| 10:43 | SeanDaly | issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles? |
| 10:43 | tomeu | oh, ok |
| 10:43 | cjb | in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those" |
| 10:43 | bernie | bernie: back in business |
| 10:43 | tomeu | in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right? |
| 10:43 | cjb | tomeu: yes |
| 10:44 | tomeu | and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo? |
| 10:44 | cjb | tomeu: just the content, I think |
| 10:44 | walterbender | bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311 |
| 10:44 | bernie | mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right? |
| 10:44 | SeanDaly | piles of flash stuff? |
| 10:44 | cjb | SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free |
| 10:45 | bernie: right -- currently no | |
| 10:45 | bernie: we'd be creating one now | |
| 10:45 | tomeu | SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all? |
| 10:45 | so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable | |
| 10:45 | SeanDaly | cjb: free as in 4 freedoms? |
| 10:45 | cjb | SeanDaly: legally, yes |
| 10:45 | you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL | |
| 10:46 | bernie | I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing |
| 10:46 | SeanDaly | huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info, |
| 10:46 | cjb | I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point |
| 10:46 | bernie | which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses |
| 10:46 | (this is Mel) | |
| 10:46 | cjb | SeanDaly: sure, I agree |
| 10:46 | SeanDaly | I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online |
| 10:46 | walterbender | cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash |
| 10:46 | bernie | mel: basically, have a legal req for content posted on ASLO (possibly extend that to other things that SL distributes, but ASLO seems to be the issue at present) |
| 10:46 | cjb | Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules |
| 10:47 | Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones. | |
| 10:47 | bernie | mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly. |
| 10:47 | cjb | walterbender: that's a good point |
| 10:47 | bernie | cjb: link? |
| 10:47 | cjb | http://opensource.org/docs/osd |
| 10:47 | bernie | mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though |
| 10:47 | cjb | the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical |
| 10:48 | MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content | |
| 10:48 | bernie | bus riders are looking at the link, one sec |
| 10:48 | SeanDaly | I'd rather read that first before voting on anything |
| 10:49 | cjb | ok. we could postpone. |
| 10:49 | walterbender | so another homework assignment so we can vote next week? |
| 10:49 | bernie | mel: I'm good with the list |
| 10:49 | mel: I've read it already | |
| 10:49 | tomeu | and I guess SFC has a say on this? |
| 10:49 | walterbender | but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea? |
| 10:50 | tomeu | because relates to their mission? |
| 10:50 | cjb | tomeu: yes. we mentioned the idea that we might distribute something that isn't on this list (ebooks under CC noncommercial license), and they decided they'd have to talk to their board about it |
| 10:50 | walterbender | I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :) |
| 10:50 | cjb | so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion |
| 10:51 | (that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO) | |
| 10:51 | bernie | bernie: cjb: while I agree with the OSI definition of what constitutes an open source license, I'd much prefer a list of acceptable licenses rather than a set of rules that would force us to go through a lawyer every time we see a new license. |
| 10:51 | cjb | bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient |
| 10:51 | bernie: if someone proposes Skype | |
| 10:51 | walterbender | bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical |
| 10:51 | that is a list | |
| 10:51 | bernie | mel: they're not incompatible, we can say "our legal thing is the OSD, here's a list of licenses we know fit these criteria, new ones come talk to us." |
| 10:51 | cjb | and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list |
| 10:51 | SeanDaly | ASLO is response to SoaS problem |
| 10:51 | cjb | I need a way to reject it |
| 10:51 | bernie | mel: walterbender: exactly |
| 10:51 | cjb | (legally happened to work in this example) |
| 10:51 | but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed | |
| 10:52 | it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all | |
| 10:52 | so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted | |
| 10:52 | let's rephrase, though: | |
| 10:53 | MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable | |
| 10:53 | bernie: does that cover your concern? | |
| 10:53 | walterbender | cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one. |
| 10:53 | bernie | bernie: cjb aye |
| 10:53 | SeanDaly | I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page. |
| 10:53 | cjb | SeanDaly: that's fine. I won't push you to. |
| 10:53 | SeanDaly | Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds. |
| 10:53 | bernie | mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week? |
| 10:53 | cjb | SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear. |
| 10:54 | bernie | mel: I'll take the homework assignment of blogging this so that others pick up on it on Planet (and hopefully Fedora folks can chime in as well) |
| 10:54 | (and $otherdistros if we can get them) | |
| 10:54 | walterbender | OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week. |
| 10:54 | SeanDaly | walterbender: yes |
| 10:54 | cjb | mel: thanks! |
| 10:54 | that's a good idea | |
| 10:54 | bernie | #action mchua to blog licensing motion |
| 10:54 | walterbender | OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes. |
| 10:55 | bernie | #action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday |
| 10:55 | mel: yeah, let's move on | |
| 10:55 | walterbender | #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week |
| 10:55 | thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting can #action | |
| 10:56 | bernie | we'll find out :) |
| 10:56 | walterbender | #TOPIC trademark |
| 10:56 | bernie | walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face.. |
| 10:56 | (adam) | |
| 10:56 | walterbender | we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on. |
| 10:57 | bernie | mel: can we line up the to-do list on those and then break for the week with homework? I don't think we have enough time to discuss and vote on anything else atm |
| 10:57 | walterbender | adam: yes. an important, thorny topic. |
| 10:57 | mel: I agree. | |
| 10:57 | SeanDaly | very thorny indeed |
| 10:57 | bernie | mel: and honestly ASLO licensing is kind of a big deal so if we line that up for next week's Big Goal I'm pretty happy |
| 10:58 | walterbender | I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage. |
| 10:58 | from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse | |
| 10:58 | bernie | mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep |
| 10:58 | walterbender | to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora |
| 10:58 | cjb | Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models: |
| 10:58 | .. yeah, those. :) | |
| 10:59 | walterbender | openSuse will not allow remix at all |
| 10:59 | cjb | it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora |
| 10:59 | bernie | mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo |
| 10:59 | walterbender | cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say |
| 10:59 | SeanDaly | concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists |
| 10:59 | walterbender | and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option |
| 11:00 | SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy | |
| 11:00 | SeanDaly | yes, fully aggree |
| 11:00 | s/gg/g | |
| 11:00 | bernie | bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros |
| 11:01 | walterbender | bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE. |
| 11:01 | bernie | mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting |
| 11:01 | SeanDaly | my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands |
| 11:01 | walterbender | bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider? |
| 11:01 | bernie | mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark. |
| 11:01 | cjb | hm |
| 11:01 | walterbender | (everyone was going to research one for today's meeting) |
| 11:01 | bernie | mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this |
| 11:02 | cjb | mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week? |
| 11:02 | I don't know why we'd prioritize something that's been a problem for a week over something that's been a problem for like four months :) | |
| 11:02 | walterbender | I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick. |
| 11:02 | bernie | cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it |
| 11:02 | walterbender | (I predict) |
| 11:02 | bernie | (mel) |
| 11:02 | cjb | yeah, +1 on walter |
| 11:02 | bernie | mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;) |
| 11:02 | if we think it'll be that quick | |
| 11:02 | walterbender | but we should wrap up today's meeting. |
| 11:02 | cjb | well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too |
| 11:03 | SeanDaly | There is a current case of trademark usage |
| 11:03 | cjb | (what mel said) |
| 11:03 | walterbender | any final words? |
| 11:03 | SeanDaly | in a way that shouldn't |
| 11:03 | bernie | mel: nope, happy to close now |
| 11:03 | walterbender | 3 |
| 11:03 | 2 | |
| 11:03 | 1 | |
| 11:03 | cjb | SeanDaly: let's talk about that now |
| 11:03 | bernie | Bye from the FUDbuss @ |
| 11:03 | cjb | but in the closed meeting |
| 11:03 | walterbender | thanks everyone |
| 11:03 | SeanDaly | cjb:ok |
| 11:03 | thanks all | |
| 11:03 | cjb | I mean, let's hang around and talk about it |
| 11:03 | thanks all | |
| 11:03 | walterbender | I'll post the minutes |
| 11:03 | #endmeeting |